[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63178-63182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
EZRX, LLC Revocation of Registration
On May 17, 2004, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate
Suspension of Registration to EXRX, LLC (EZRX) of Union, New Jersey.
EZRX was notified of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should
not revoke its DEA Certificate of Registration, BE8488783, as a retail
pharmacy, and deny any pending applications for renewal or modification
of such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4) for
reason that its continued registration would be inconsistent with the
public interest. EZRX was further notified that its DEA registration
was immediately suspended as an imminent danger to the public health
and safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d).
The Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension alleged in sum,
that EZRX was engaged in illegally dispensing controlled substances as
part of a scheme in which controlled substances were dispensed by EZRX
based on Internet orders placed by customers and approved by associated
physicians, based solely on their review of Internet questionnaires and
without personal contact, examination or bona fide physician/patient
relationships. Such prescriptions were not issued ``in the usual course
of professional treatment'' and violated 21 CFR 1306.04 and 21 U.S.C.
841(a). This action was part of a nationwide enforcement operation by
DEA titled Operation Pharmnet, which targeted online suppliers of
prescription drugs, including owners, operators, pharmacists and
doctors, who have illegally and unethically been marketing controlled
substances via the Internet.
According to the investigative file on May 26, 2004, the Order to
Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration was personally
served by Special Agents and Diversion Investigators of the DEA at
EZRX's registered premises in Union, New Jersey. More than thirty days
have passed since the Order to Show Cause
[[Page 63179]]
and Immediate Suspension of Registration was served on EZRX and DEA has
not received a request for hearing or any other reply from EZRX or
anyone purporting to represent it in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, finding that (1) thirty
days having passed since the delivery of the Order to Show Cause and
Immediate Suspension of Registration to EZRX, and (2) no request for
hearing having been received, concludes that EZRX is deemed to have
waived its hearing right. See David W. Linder, 67 FR 12,579 (2002).
After considering material from the investigative file in this matter,
the Deputy Administrator now enters her final order without a hearing
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and (e) and 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds EZRX is currently registered with
DEA as a retail pharmacy under DEA Registration, BE8488783 to dispense
Schedule II through V Controlled Substances. That registration expires
on August 31, 2006. The owners of EZRX are Frank C. Hernandez and his
wife, Amada Hernandez.
In 2003, the DEA Miami Field Division initiated regulatory
investigations of C&H Wholesale, Inc. (C&H) and Lifeline Pharmacy, Inc.
(Lifeline). C&H was registered with DEA as a distributor of Schedule II
through V controlled substances and Lifeline was registered as a retail
pharmacy of the same substances. Both companies are owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Hernandez and the registered premises they occupy are physically
connected and share floor space with the Hernandez' non-drug
businesses.
During the regulatory examination of C&H, it was discovered that
C&H was distributing controlled substances almost exclusively to South
Florida pharmacies, including Lifeline, which were filling Internet
controlled substance prescriptions. The majority of distributions were
for Schedule III and IV controlled substance weight loss medications
including, but not limited to substantial quantities of phentermine,
phendimetrazine tartrate, Dexedrine and tenuate.
On October 10, 2003, as a result of investigative findings that C&H
and Lifeline were facilitating and dispensing controlled substances by
virtue of prescriptions issued not for legitimate medical purposes and
not in the usual course of professional medical practice, the then-
Acting Deputy Administrator issued orders to show cause to C&H and
Lifeline and immediately suspended their registrations on grounds that
the posed an immediate threat to the public health and safety.
Subsequent investigation by Miami DEA investigators revealed that
on August 21, 2003, the same day a federal search warrant was being
executed on Lifeline's Florida premises, Mr. Hernandez filed a new
application for registration on behalf of EZRX, as a retail pharmacy in
New Jersey. That application was inadvertently routinely processed in
New Jersey while the Miami investigation was still in process and it
was approved on September 9, 2003. Later, in the course of document
review, DEA Miami investigators found paperwork indicating Mr. and Mrs.
Hernandez were the owners of EZRX and that two Florida employees, Mr.
Hernandez' nephew and wife, were also key employees of the New Jersey
retail pharmacy.
On November 6, 2003, DEA Miami investigators made an undercover buy
from a Florida-based website. Using a fictitious name and an undercover
Internet e-mail account and computer, investigators placed an order for
Bontril, a Schedule IV controlled substance weight loss medication.
After filling out a medical questionnaire on the website and sending a
money order to an affiliated company, E.V.A. Global, Inc., a package
was received at the undercover address via Federal Express. It was
shipped by EZRX on November 11, 2003, from its registered address and
contained 89 Bontril SR 105mg capsules. The prescription label
indicated it had been dispensed by EZRX and the issuing physician was
an individual, later identified as a DEA registrant, who had prescribed
controlled substances during similar undercover purchases made through
Lifeline. There was no contact between the prescribing physician and
the undercover investigator, other than transmission of the Internet
questionnaire.
Another physician involved with Internet prescribing thorough
E.V.A. Global, Inc. was interviewed by investigators and described the
process. He would access a web site provided him by E.V.A. Global,
Inc., where customers' medical questionnaires would be posted. The
physician would access the questionnaires one at a time, review the
questionnaire and either approve or deny the prescription request. He
did not have the ability to suggest an alternative drug or an alternate
amount and there was never any contact between the physician and either
the ``patient'' or the dispensing pharmacy.
It was determined that from September through November 2003, EZRX
ordered in excess of 300,000 dosage units of Schedule III and IV
controlled substances, including the controlled substances commonly
sold through websites affiliated with E.V.A. Global, Inc., to include
phentermine, Ionamin, Meridia, Didrex, phendimetrazine tartrate and
Ambien.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) establishes a ``closed system''
of distribution that regulates the movement of controlled substance
prescription medications from importation or manufacture through their
delivery to the ultimate user patient via the dispensing, administering
or prescribing, pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner. The
regulations implementing the CSA explicitly describe the parameters of
a lawful prescription as follows: ``A prescription for a controlled
substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical
purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his
professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
Prescriptions issued not in the ``usual course of professional
treatment'' are not ``prescriptions'' for purposes of the CSA and
individuals issuing and filling such purported prescriptions are
subject to the penalties for violating the CSA's controlled substances
provisions.
In United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975), the Supreme Court
held that, ``Implicit in the registration of a physician is the
understanding that he is authorized only to act `as a physician'.''
Id., at 141. In Moore the court implicitly approved a jury instruction
that acting ``as a physician'' is acting ``in the usual course of a
professional practice and in accordance with a standard of medical
practice generally recognized and accepted in the United States.'' Id.,
at 138-139; see, United States v. Norris, 780 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir.
1986).
Responsible professional organizations have issued guidance in this
area. The American Medical Association's guidance for physicians on the
appropriate use of the Internet in prescribing medication (H-120.949
Guidance for Physicians on Internet Prescribing) states:
``Physicians who prescribe medications via the Internet shall
establish, or have established, a valid patient-physician relationship,
including, but not limited to, the following components. The physician
shall:
i. Obtain a reliable medical history and perform a physical
examination of the patient, adequate to establish the diagnosis for
which the drug is being prescribed and to identify underlying
[[Page 63180]]
conditions and/or contraindications to the treatment recommended/
provided;
ii. Have sufficient dialogue with the patient regarding treatment
options and the risks and benefits of treatment(s);
iii. As appropriate, follow up with the patient to assess the
therapeutic outcome;
iv. Maintain a contemporaneous medical record that is readily
available to the patient and, subject to the patient's consent, to his
or her other health care professionals; and
v. Include the electronic prescription information as part of the
patient medical record.''
In April 2000, the Federation of State Medical Boards adopted Model
Guidelines for the Appropriate use of the Internet in Medical Practice,
which states, in pertinent part, that:
Treatment and consultation recommendations made in an online
setting, including issuing a prescription via electronic means, will
be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in
traditional (face-to-face) settings. Treatment, including issuing a
prescription, based solely on an online questionnaire or
consultation does not constitute an acceptable standard of care.
The CSA regulations establish certain responsibilities not only on
individual practitioners who issue prescriptions for controlled
substances, but also on pharmacists who fill them. A pharmacist's
``corresponding responsibility'' regarding the proper dispensing of
controlled substances is explicitly described in 21 CFR 1306.04(a). It
provides:
A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must
be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual
practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional
practice. The responsibility for the proper prescribing and
dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing
practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the
pharmacist who fills the prescription.
In an April 21, 2001, policy statement, entitled, Dispensing and
Purchasing Controlled Substances Over the Internet, 66 FR 21,181
(2001), DEA delineated certain circumstances in which prescribing over
the Internet is unlawful. The policy provides, inter alia, that a
controlled substance should not be issued or dispensed unless there was
a bona fide doctor/patient relationship. Such a relationship required
that the patient has a medical complaint, a medical history be taken, a
physical examination performed, and some logical connection exists
between the medical complaint, the medical history, the physical
examination, and the drug prescribed. The policy statement specifically
explained that the completion of ``a questionnaire that is then review
by a doctor hired by the Internet pharmacy could not be considered the
basis for a doctor/patient relationship * * * '' Id., at 21,182-21,183.
Rogue Internet Pharmacies bypass a legitimate doctor-patient
relationship, usually by use of a cursory and incomplete online
questionnaire or perfunctory telephone ``consult'' with a doctor, who
usually has a contractual arrangement with the online pharmacy and is
often paid on the basis of prescriptions issued. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) considers the questionnaire, in lieu of face-to-
face interaction, to be a practice that undermines safeguards of direct
medical supervision and amounts to substandard medical care. See U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, Buying Medicines and Medical Products
Online, General FAQs (http://fda.gov/oc/buyonline/default.htm).
The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy considers internet
pharmacies to be suspect if:
They dispense prescription medications without requiring the
consumer to mail in a prescription, and if they dispense
prescription medications and do not contact the patient's prescriber
to obtain a valid verbal prescription. Further, online pharmacies
are suspect if they dispense prescription medications solely based
upon the consumer completing an online questionnaire without the
consumer having a pre-existing relationship with a prescriber and
the benefit of an in-person physical examination. State boards of
pharmacy, boards of medicine, the FDA, as well as the AMA, condemn
this practice and consider it to be unprofessional.
See, National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, VIIPS Program, Most
Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.nabp.net/vipps/consumer/faq.asp).
Rogue Internet pharmacies often use persons with limited or no
knowledge of medications and standard pharmacy practices to fill
prescriptions, do not advertise the availability of pharmacists for
medication consultation, and focus on select medications, usually
lifestyle, obesity and pain medications. Rogue Internet pharmacies
generally do not protect the integrity of original faxed prescriptions
by requiring that they be received directly from the prescriber (not
the patient) and do not verify the authenticity of suspect
prescriptions.
When the established safeguards of an authentic doctor-patient
relationship are lacking, controlled substance prescription drugs can
not only be misused, but also present potentially serious health risks
to patients. Rogue Internet pharmacies facilitate the easy
circumvention of legitimate medical practice. The FDA has stated:
We know that adverse events are under-reported and we know from
history that tolerating the sale of unproven, fraudulent, or
adulterated drugs results in harm to the public health. It is
reasonable to expect that the illegal sales of drugs over the
Internet and the number of resulting injuries will increase as sales
on the Internet grow. Without clear and effective law enforcement,
violators will have no reason to stop their illegal practices.
Unless we begin to act now, unlawful conduct and the resulting harm
to consumers most likely will increase.
See U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Buying Medicines and Medical
Products Online, General FAQs (http://fda.gov/oc/buyonline/default.htm).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy
Administrator may revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration and deny any
pending application for renewal of such registration, if she determines
that the continued registration would be inconsistent with the public
interest. Section 823(f) requires that the following factors be
considered in determining the public interest:
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate state licensing board or
professional disciplinary authority.
(2) The applicant's experience in dispensing or conducting research
with respect to controlled substances.
(3) The applicant's conviction record under federal or state laws
relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled
substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable state, federal, or local laws
relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health or
safety.
These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy
Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may
give each factor the weight she deems appropriate in determining
whether a registration should be revoked or an application for
registration denied. See Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16,422
(1989).
In this case, the Deputy Administrator finds factors two, four and
five relevant to a determination of whether EZRX's continued
registration remains consistent with the public interest.
With regard to factor one, the recommendation of the appropriate
state licensing board or professional disciplinary authority, there is
no evidence in the investigative file that EZRX has been the subject of
a state disciplinary proceeding, nor is there
[[Page 63181]]
evidence demonstrating that its state pharmacy license or state
controlled substance authority are currently restricted in any form.
Nevertheless, state licensure is a necessary, but not sufficient
condition for registration, and therefore, this factor is not
dispositive. See e.g., Wesley G. Harline, M.D., 65 FR 5,665-01 (2000);
James C. LaJevic, D.M.D., 64 FR 55,962 (1999).
With regard to factors two and four, the Deputy Administrator finds
that the primary conduct at issue in this proceeding (i.e., the
unlawful dispensing of controlled substance prescriptions for use by
Internet customers) relates to both EZRX's and its owners' experience
in dispensing controlled substances, as well as its compliance with
applicable state, federal, or local laws relating to controlled
substances. DEA has consistently held that the registration of a
pharmacy may be revoked as the result of the unlawful activity of the
pharmacy's owners, majority shareholders, officers, managing pharmacist
or other key employee. See Plaza Pharmacy, 53 FR 36,910 (1988)
A DEA registration authorizes a physician to prescribe or dispense
controlled substances only within the usual course of his or her
professional practice. For a prescription to have been issued within
the course of a practitioner's professional practice, it must have been
written for a legitimate medical purpose within the context of a valid
physician-patient relationship. See Mark Wade, M.D., 69 FR 7,018
(2004). 51,600 (1998). Legally, there is absolutely no difference
between the sale of an illicit drug on the street and the illicit
dispensing of a licit drug by means of a physician's prescription. See
Floyd A Santner, M.D., 55 FR 37,581 (1990).
Factors two and four are relevant to EZRX's dispensing of Internet
prescribed controlled substances. The Deputy Administrator concludes
from a review of the record that the physicians issuing these
prescriptions did not establish valid physician-patient relationships
with Internet customers to whom they prescribed controlled substances.
DEA has previously found that prescriptions issued through a pharmacy
Internet Web site are not considered as having been issued in the usual
course of medical practice, in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04 and has
revoked the DEA registrations of several physicians for participating
in Internet prescribing schemes similar to or identical to that of
EZRX. See, Marvin L. Gibbs, Jr., M.D., 69 FR 11,658 (2004); Mark Wade,
M.D., supra, 69 FR 7,018; Ernesto A. Cantu, M.D., 69 FR 7,104-02
(2004); Rick Joe Nelson, M.D., 66 FR 30,752 (2001).
Similarly, in the past few years, DEA has issued orders to show
cause and subsequently revoked the DEA registrations of pharmacies
which failed to fulfill their corresponding responsibility in Internet
prescribing operations, similar to those of EZRX and its principals and
their affiliated companies. See Prescriptiononline.com, 69 FR 5,583
(2004); Pill Box Pharmacy (surrendered DEA registration as part of
owner's and pharmacy's guilty plea to 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) violation);
Friendly Pharmacy (pharmacist pled guilty and owner convicted at trial,
of violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a). Indeed, C&H and Lifeline, the
predecessor Internet pharmacy entities owned by EZRX's principals, were
both subjects of orders to show cause with immediate suspensions and
both companies surrendered their DEA Certificates of Registration.
In the instant case, physicians associated with the Internet
operation authorized prescriptions for controlled substances without
the benefit of face-to-face physician-patient contact, physical exam or
medical test. There is no information in the investigative file
demonstrating that the issuing physicians even took the time
corroborate responses to questionnaires that were submitted by EZRX's
customers. Here, it is clear that the issuance of controlled substance
prescriptions to persons whom the prescribing physician has not
established a valid physician-patient relationship is a radical
departure from the normal course of professional practice and that EZRX
knowingly participating in this scheme.
With regard to factor three, applicant's conviction record under
federal or state laws relating to the dispensing of controlled
substances, the record does not reflect that EZRX or its principals
have been convicted of a felony related to controlled substances.
Regarding factor five, such other conduct which may threaten the
public health or safety, the Deputy Administrator finds this factor
relevant to EZRX's continued dispensing to Internet customers after
issuance of policy statements designed to assist licensed practitioners
and pharmacists in the proper prescribing and dispensing of dangerous
controlled drugs.
Factor five is also relevant to EZRX's continued Internet
prescribing after C&H and Lifeline, both owned by the principals of
EZRX, were served with Orders to Show Cause and for Immediate
Suspensions in October 2003. These entities sought an order in United
States District Court seeking to restrain DEA from imposing the
immediate suspensions of their registrations. After the District Court
held hearings to make a threshold determination that DEA had some basis
to back up its allegations regarding the Internet prescribing
activities of C&H and Lifeline, the Court upheld the immediate
suspensions by DEA, finding ``there is not a substantial likelihood
that C&H and Lifeline will prevail on the merits.'' It further stated,
``the danger of the public obtaining controlled substances outweighs
the threatened injury to C&H and Lifeline. Granting the preliminary
injunction would affect the public interest, again putting the public
in danger of obtaining controlled substances.'' See C&H Wholesale, Inc.
and Lifeline Pharmacy, Inc., CIV 03-61910 (S.D. Fla., October 23,
2003). Nevertheless after the District Court's Order, EZRX continued
this practice and dispensed the controlled substance ordered over the
Internet by undercover agents on November 6, 2003.
Similarly, factor five is relevant to Mr. Hernandez' timing in
applying for EZRX's DEA registration on August 21, 2003. This is the
date a federal search warrant was executed on Lifeline, his Florida
pharmacy and further suggests the New Jersey operation was established
by Mr. Hernandez to continue Internet dispensing as a back up to his
Florida operations.
The Deputy Administrator has previously expressed her deep concern
about the increased risk of diversion which accompanies Internet
controlled substance transactions. Given the nascent practice of cyber-
distribution of controlled drugs to faceless individuals, where
interaction between individuals is limited to information on a computer
screen or credit card, it is virtually impossible to insure that these
highly addictive, and sometimes dangerous products will reach the
intended recipient, and if so, whether the person purchasing these
products has an actual need for them. The ramifications of obtaining
dangerous and highly addictive drugs with the ease of logging on to a
computer and the use of a credit card are disturbing and immense,
particularly when one considers the growing problem of the abuse of
prescription drugs in the United States. See, Mark Wade, M.D., supra,
69 FR 7,018.
The Deputy Administrator has also previously found that in a 2001
report, the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information
estimated that 4 million Americans ages 12 and older had acknowledged
misusing
[[Page 63182]]
prescription drugs. That accounts for 2% to 4% of the populations--a
rate of abuse that has quadrupled since 1980. Prescription drug abuse--
typically of painkillers, sedatives and mood-altering drugs--accounts
for one-third of all illicit drug use in the United States. See Mark
Wade, M.D., supra, 69 FR 7,018.
The Deputy Administrator finds that with respect to Internet
transactions involving controlled substances, the horrific untold
stories of drug abuse, addiction and treatment are the unintended, but
foreseeable consequence of providing highly addictive drugs to the
public without oversight. The closed system of distribution, brought
about by the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act, is completely
compromised when individuals can easily acquire controlled substances
without regard to age or health status. Such lack of oversight
describes EZRX, its principals, their associated companies and
affiliated physician's practice of issuing prescriptions for and
distributing controlled substances to indistinct Internet customers.
Such conduct contributes to the abuse of controlled substances by
EZRX's customers and is relevant under factor five and further supports
revocation of its DEA Certificate of Registration.
It appears that EZRX and its principals, motivated purely by profit
and in pursuit of financial gain, have demonstrated a cavalier
disregard for controlled substance laws and regulations and a
disturbing indifference to the health and safety of customers who
purchased dangerous drugs through the Internet. Such demonstrated lack
of character and adherence to the responsibilities inherent in a DEA
registration show in no uncertain terms that EZRX's continued
registration with DEA would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Accordingly, the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by
21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that
DEA Certificate of Registration BE8488783, previously issued to EZRX,
LLC, be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator further
orders that any pending applications for renewal of such registration
be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective November 29,
2004.
Dated: September 29, 2004.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-24235 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M